Top

Gepubliceerd in:

30-07-2022 | Editorial

Introduction to the special section "Reducing research waste in (health-related) quality of life research"

Auteurs: Claudia Rutherford, Jan R. Boehnke

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 10/2022

Excerpt

In 2021, we issued a call for papers on reducing (health-related) quality of life ((HR)QL) research waste and optimizing patient-reported outcome (PRO)/(HR)QL data. As identified by Chalmers and Glasziou [1], research waste refers to avoidable inappropriate conduct and dissemination of research. It has multiple contributing factors and is likely a spectrum of impact rather than a dichotomous categorization (e.g., a question of how much of a given study could be considered research waste). In particular, Chalmers and Glasziou highlighted "the choice of research questions; the quality of research design and methods; the adequacy of publication practices; and the quality of reports of research" [2] as focal areas where decisions and actions of stakeholders in the research process could have negative impact. …

volgende artikel Reducing research wastage by starting off on the right foot: optimally framing the research question

Glasziou, P., & Chalmers, I. (2018). Research waste is still a scandal—An essay by Paul Glasziou and Iain Chalmers. BMJ, 363, k4645.CrossRef

Chalmers, I., & Glasziou, P. (2009). Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. The Lancet, 374(9683), 86–89.CrossRef

Cruz Rivera, S., McMullan, C., Jones, L., Kyte, D., Slade, A., & Calvert, M. (2020). The impact of patient-reported outcome data from clinical trials: Perspectives from international stakeholders. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes., 4(1), 51.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Mercieca-Bebber, R., Friedlander, M., Calvert, M., Stockler, M., Kyte, D., Kok, P.-S., et al. (2017). A systematic evaluation of compliance and reporting of patient-reported outcome endpoints in ovarian cancer randomised controlled trials: Implications for generalisability and clinical practice. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 1(1), 5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Haywood, K., Lyddiatt, A., Brace-McDonnell, S. J., Staniszewska, S., & Salek, S. (2017). Establishing the values for patient engagement (PE) in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) research: An international, multiple-stakeholder perspective. Quality of Life Research, 26(6), 1393–1404.PubMedCrossRef

Mercieca-Bebber, R., Rouette, J., Calvert, M., King, M. T., McLeod, L., Holch, P., et al. (2017). Preliminary evidence on the uptake, use and benefits of the CONSORT-PRO extension. Quality of Life Research, 26(6), 1427–1437.PubMedCrossRef

Haywood, K. L., Brett, J., Tutton, E., & Staniszewska, S. (2017). Patient-reported outcome measures in older people with hip fracture: A systematic review of quality and acceptability. Quality of Life Research, 26(4), 799–812.PubMedCrossRef

Calvert, M., King, M., & Brundage, M. (2018). Minimising research waste and maximising the impact of patient reported outcome trial results. Quality of Life Research, 27, S3.

Macleod, M. R., Michie, S., Roberts, I., Dirnagl, U., Chalmers, I., Ioannidis, J. P., et al. (2014). Biomedical research: Increasing value, reducing waste. The Lancet, 383(9912), 101–104.CrossRef

10.

Glasziou, P., Altman, D. G., Bossuyt, P., Boutron, I., Clarke, M., Julious, S., et al. (2014). Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. The Lancet, 383(9913), 267–276.CrossRef

11.

Mayo, N. E., Ow, N., Asano, M., Askari, S., Barclay, R., Figueiredo, S., et al. (2022). Reducing research wastage by starting off on the right foot: Optimally framing the research question. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03117-yCrossRefPubMed

12.

Ioannidis, J. P., Greenland, S., Hlatky, M. A., Khoury, M. J., Macleod, M. R., Moher, D., et al. (2014). Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. The Lancet, 383(9912), 166–175.CrossRef

13.

Kyte, D., Duffy, H., Fletcher, B., Gheorghe, A., Mercieca-Bebber, R., King, M., et al. (2014). Systematic evaluation of the patient-reported outcome (PRO) content of clinical trial protocols. PLoS ONE, 9(10), e110229.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

14.

Kyte, D., Retzer, A., Ahmed, K., Keeley, T., Armes, J., Brown, J. M., et al. (2019). Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome protocol content and reporting in cancer trials. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 111(11), 1170–1178.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

15.

Mercieca-Bebber, R., Friedlander, M., Kok, P. S., Calvert, M., Kyte, D., Stockler, M., et al. (2016). The patient-reported outcome content of international ovarian cancer randomised controlled trial protocols. Quality of Life Research, 25(10), 2457–2465.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Calvert, M., King, M., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Aiyegbusi, O., Kyte, D., Slade, A., et al. (2021). SPIRIT-PRO Extension explanation and elaboration: Guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in protocols of clinical trials. British Medical Journal Open, 11(6), e045105.

17.

Calvert, M., Kyte, D., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Slade, A., Chan, A. W., King, M. T., et al. (2018). Guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial protocols: The SPIRIT-PRO extension. JAMA, 319(5), 483–494.PubMedCrossRef

18.

King, M. T., Tait, M. A., Campbell, R., Müller, F., Rutherford, C., Beckmore, C., et al. (2022). Improving the patient-reported outcome sections of clinical trial protocols: A mixed methods evaluation of educational workshops. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03127-wCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Anderson, S. F. (2021). Power(ful) myths: Misconceptions regarding sample size in quality of life research. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-03020-yCrossRefPubMed

20.

Calvert, M., Blazeby, J., Altman, D. G., Revicki, D. A., Moher, D., & Brundage, M. D. (2013). Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: The CONSORT PRO extension. JAMA, 309(8), 814–822.PubMedCrossRef

21.

EQUATOR network. Retrieved from https://www.equator-network.org/

22.

Mercieca-Bebber, R., Friedlander, M., Calvert, M., Stockler, M., Kyte, D., Kok, P. S., et al. (2017). A systematic evaluation of compliance and reporting of patient-reported outcome endpoints in ovarian cancer randomised controlled trials: Implications for generalisability and clinical practice. J Patient Rep Outcomes, 1(1), 5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

23.

Mercieca-Bebber, R. L., Perreca, A., King, M., Macann, A., Whale, K., Soldati, S., et al. (2016). Patient-reported outcomes in head and neck and thyroid cancer randomised controlled trials: A systematic review of completeness of reporting and impact on interpretation. European Journal of Cancer, 56, 144–161.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Rivera, S.C., Aiyegbusi, O.L., Ives, J., Draper, H., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Ells, C., et al. (2022). Ethical considerations for the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in clinical research: The PRO ethics guidelines. JAMA, 327(19), 1910–1919. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.6421CrossRef

25.

McCreanor, V., Lum, E., Graves, N., Luo, N., Parsonage, W., & Barnett, A. (2022). Reducing waste in collection of quality-of-life data through better reporting: A case study. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03079-1CrossRefPubMed

26.

Chan, A. W., Song, F., Vickers, A., Jefferson, T., Dickersin, K., Gøtzsche, P. C., et al. (2014). Increasing value and reducing waste: Addressing inaccessible research. The Lancet, 383(9913), 257–266.CrossRef

27.

Rutherford, C., Müller, F., Faiz, N., King, M. T., & White, K. (2020). Patient-reported outcomes and experiences from the perspective of colorectal cancer survivors: Meta-synthesis of qualitative studies. J Patient Reported Outcomes, 4(1), 27.CrossRef

28.

Rutherford, C., Patel, M. I., Tait, M. A., Smith, D. P., Costa, D. S. J., Sengupta, S., et al. (2021). Patient-reported outcomes in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: A mixed-methods systematic review. Quality of Life Research, 30(2), 345–366.PubMedCrossRef

29.

King, M. T., Winters, Z. E., Olivotto, I. A., Spillane, A. J., Chua, B. H., Saunders, C., et al. (2017). Patient-reported outcomes in ductal carcinoma in situ: A systematic review. European Journal of Cancer, 71, 95–108.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Mercieca-Bebber, R., Aiyegbusi, O. L., King, M. T., Brundage, M., Snyder, C., & Calvert, M. (2022). Knowledge translation concerns for the CONSORT-PRO extension reporting guidance: A review of reviews. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03119-wCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Minogue, V., Morrissey, M., & Terres, A. (2022). Supporting researchers in knowledge translation and dissemination of their research to increase usability and impact. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03122-1CrossRefPubMed

32.

Houts, C. R., Bush, E. N., Edwards, M. C., & Wirth, R. J. (2022). Using validity theory and psychometrics to evaluate and support expanded uses of existing scales. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03162-7CrossRefPubMed

33.

Ramsey, I., Corsini, N., Hutchinson, A., Marker, J., & Eckert, M. (2022). Challenges and opportunities for using population health data to investigate cancer survivors’ quality of life in Australia. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03112-3CrossRefPubMed

34.

Al-Shahi Salman, R., Beller, E., Kagan, J., Hemminki, E., Phillips, R. S., Savulescu, J., et al. (2014). Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. Lancet, 383(9912), 176–185.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Altman, D. G. (1994). The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ, 308(6924), 283–284.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

36.

Chalmers, I., Bracken, M. B., Djulbegovic, B., Garattini, S., Grant, J., Gülmezoglu, A. M., et al. (2014). How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet, 383(9912), 156–165.PubMedCrossRef

37.

The Lancet. The REWARD Statement. Retrieved from https://www.thelancet.com/campaigns/efficiency/statement

38.

Costa, D. S. J., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Rutherford, C., Tait, M.-A., & King, M. T. (2021). How is quality of life defined and assessed in published research? Quality of Life Research, 30(8), 2109–2121.PubMedCrossRef

39.

Skevington, S. M., & Böhnke, J. R. (2018). How is subjective well-being related to quality of life? Do we need two concepts and both measures? Social Science & Medicine, 206, 22–30.CrossRef

40.

Haraldstad, K., Wahl, A., Andenæs, R., Andersen, J. R., Andersen, M. H., Beisland, E., et al. (2019). A systematic review of quality of life research in medicine and health sciences. Quality of Life Research, 28(10), 2641–2650.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

41.

Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Oishi, S. (2018). Advances and Open Questions in the Science of Subjective Well-Being. Collabra Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.115CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Wilson, I. B., & Cleary, P. D. (1995). Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA, 273(1), 59–65.PubMedCrossRef

43.

World Health Organisation. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Retrieved from https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/international-classification-of-functioning-disability-and-health.

44.

Hays, R. D., & Fayers, P. M. (2021). Overlap of depressive symptoms with health-related quality-of-life measures. PharmacoEconomics, 39(6), 627–630.PubMedCrossRef

45.

van Zyl, L. E., & Rothmann, S. (2022). Grand challenges for positive psychology: Future perspectives and opportunities. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1–8.

46.

Marsh, H. W. (1994). Sport motivation orientations: Beware of jingle-jangle fallacies. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16(4), 365–380.CrossRef

47.

Minogue, V., Cooke, M., Donskoy, A.-L., Vicary, P., & Wells, B. (2018). Patient and public involvement in reducing health and care research waste. Research Involvement and Engagement, 4(1), 5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

48.

Mercieca-Bebber, R., Palmer, M. J., Brundage, M., Calvert, M., Stockler, M. R., & King, M. T. (2016). Design, implementation and reporting strategies to reduce the instance and impact of missing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data: A systematic review. British Medical Journal Open, 6(6), e010938.

49.

Bell, M. L., & Fairclough, D. L. (2014). Practical and statistical issues in missing data for longitudinal patient-reported outcomes. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 23(5), 440–459.PubMedCrossRef

50.

Molenberghs, G., Fitzmaurice, G., Kenward, M. G., Tsiatis, A., & Verbeke, G. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of missing data methodology (1st ed.). Chapman and Hall CRC.

51.

van Buuren, S. (2018). Flexible imputation of missing data. Chapman and Hall/CRC.CrossRef

52.

Boehnke, J. R., & Rutherford, C. (2020). Registered Reports at “Quality of life research.” Quality of Life Research, 29(10), 2605–2607.PubMedCrossRef

53.

Coens, C., Pe, M., Dueck, A. C., Sloan, J., Basch, E., Calvert, M., et al. (2020). International standards for the analysis of quality-of-life and patient-reported outcome endpoints in cancer randomised controlled trials: Recommendations of the SISAQOL Consortium. The Lancet Oncology, 21(2), e83–e96.PubMedCrossRef

54.

Qian, Y., Walters, S. J., Jacques, R., & Flight, L. (2021). Comprehensive review of statistical methods for analysing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) used as primary outcomes in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published by the UK’s Health Technology Assessment (HTA) journal (1997–2020). British Medical Journal Open, 11(9), e051673.

55.

Arnold, K. F., Harrison, W. J., Heppenstall, A. J., & Gilthorpe, M. S. (2018). DAG-informed regression modelling, agent-based modelling and microsimulation modelling: A critical comparison of methods for causal inference. International Journal of Epidemiology., 48(1), 243–253.PubMedCentralCrossRef

56.

Little, R. J., & Rubin, D. B. (2000). Causal effects in clinical and epidemiological studies via potential outcomes: Concepts and analytical approaches. Annual Review of Public Health., 21(1), 121–145.PubMedCrossRef

57.

Rubin, D. B. (2010). On the limitations of comparative effectiveness research. Statistics in Medicine, 29(19), 1991–1995.PubMedCrossRef

58.

Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009). Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeford University Press.CrossRef

59.

The Lancet. Research: increasing value, reducing waste 2014. Retrieved from https://www.thelancet.com/series/research.

60.

Mercieca-Bebber, R., King, M. T., Calvert, M. J., Stockler, M. R., & Friedlander, M. (2018). The importance of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials and strategies for future optimization. Patient Related Outcome Measures, 9, 353–367.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

61.

Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366.PubMedCrossRef

62.

Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196–217.PubMedCrossRef

63.

Luckett, T., & King, M. T. (2010). Choosing patient-reported outcome measures for cancer clinical research–practical principles and an algorithm to assist non-specialist researchers. European Journal of Cancer, 46(18), 3149–3157.PubMedCrossRef

64.

Snyder, C. F., Watson, M. E., Jackson, J. D., Cella, D., & Halyard, M. Y. (2007). Patient-reported outcome instrument selection: Designing a measurement strategy. Value Health., 10(Suppl 2), S76-85.PubMedCrossRef

65.

PROTEUS Consortium. About PROTEUS 2021. Retrieved from https://more.bham.ac.uk/proteus/about-proteus/.

66.

Adam, D. (2019). Science funders gamble on grant lotteries. Nature, 575, 574–575.PubMedCrossRef

67.

Fang, F. C., Bowen, A., & Casadevall, A. (2016). NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity. eLife, 5, e13323.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

68.

Aczel, B., Szaszi, B., & Holcombe, A. O. (2021). A billion-dollar donation: Estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review., 6(1), 14.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

69.

Powell, K. (2016). Does it take too long to publish research? Nature, 530(7589), 148–151.PubMedCrossRef

70.

Ashuntantang, G., Luyckx, V., Naicker, S., & Venkatapuram, S. (2021). Reform of research funding processes could pave the way for progress in global health. The Lancet Global Health., 9(8), e1053–e1054.PubMedCrossRef

71.

Bekele, A., Chu, K., D’Ambruoso, L., Davies, J. I., Ferriolli, E., Greig, C., et al. (2022). Global health research funding applications: Brain drain under another name? The Lancet Global Health., 10(1), e22–e23.PubMedCrossRef

72.

Olusanya, J. O., Ubogu, O. I., Njokanma, F. O., & Olusanya, B. O. (2021). Transforming global health through equity-driven funding. Nature Medicine, 27(7), 1136–1138.PubMedCrossRef

73.

Rutherford, C., & Böhnke J.R. (2022). Introduction to the Special Section Reducing Research Waste in (Health-Related) Quality of Life Research. Retrieved from psyarxiv.com/879xp

Titel: Introduction to the special section "Reducing research waste in (health-related) quality of life research"
Auteurs: Claudia Rutherford
Jan R. Boehnke
Publicatiedatum: 30-07-2022
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 10/2022
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03194-z

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Excerpt

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 10/2022

Pain interference and health-related quality of life in caregivers of service members and veterans with traumatic brain injury and mental health comorbidity

Multidimensional frailty and quality of life: data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing

Reducing research wastage by starting off on the right foot: optimally framing the research question

Using validity theory and psychometrics to evaluate and support expanded uses of existing scales

Correction to: Time trade‑off with someone to live for: impact of having significant others on time trade‑off valuations of hypothetical health states

The impact of toxic oil syndrome on physical and psychological health status using the HAQ and the PHQ-9 questionnaires